In case
you’re unfamiliar with TSA Pre✓™, you can read more about
it by clicking here. The shorter
version is that it's an initiative that allows certain passengers to keep their
shoes and belts on, and keep their laptops in their bags. Also, it is free to
many members who have been opted in by participating airlines. To see if you
qualify for TSA Pre✓™ benefits, pleaseclick here.

13 comments:

Anonymous
said...

This should be the standard for screening that all passengers receive instead of a selected group. The body scanners, patdowns, and bag checks should only be used if there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Although you could throw them in for random checks. An infinitesimally small number of passengers are terrorists, yet almost all passengers are treated as if they are terrorists, guilty until proven innocent.

Why are we still removing our shoes? The rest of the world does not remove their shoe, so why are we still doing it? Their planes aren't falling from the sky, so their security must be just as effective.

Also, I saw that the EU stopped Britain from using the backscatter machines due to health reasons. If Europe thinks they are unsafe, why are they still being used here? X-rays should only be used for medically necessary procedures, not for getting on a plane.

Can you cite any studies that demonstrate any sort of correlation between information PreCheck collects and the risk of a person having terrorist intentions?

Everything I ever read about the de-funded Total Information Awareness program (later called Terrorist Information Awareness) said that no good correlations were ever found. That's not surprising. Since there are very, very few terrorists. Statistically, it would be extremely difficult to find any sort of correlation.

What information could PreCheck candidates possibly reveal about themselves that would demonstrate that they are less risk than the non-PreCheck passenger?

With all the talk about risk-based approaches, I'd like to see some evidence that there's actually some risk-based analysis going on.

its not just a perk of the "wealthy" anybody can apply to be part of CBP Global Entry. Although it was originally designed for frequent flyers. There is no amount of minimum miles one needs to fly in order to become Global Entry. Once you are Global Entry you would then have access to TSA precheck

MRFLIGHT said...its not just a perk of the "wealthy" anybody can apply to be part of CBP Global Entry. Although it was originally designed for frequent flyers. There is no amount of minimum miles one needs to fly in order to become Global Entry. Once you are Global Entry you would then have access to TSA precheck

Global Entry, as the name implies is "a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) program that allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the United States" that is "intended for frequent international travelers".

Why does one need to sign up for an INTERNATIONAL traveler program in order to fly DOMESTICALLY without being groped?

Global Entry costs $100.

Why does one need to PAY to NOT be groped?

After you fill out the forms for Global Entry (Which ask for gosh-knows-what info), you need to show up in person for an interview at one of the 26 'Enrollment Centers'.

That's right- there's not even one per state.

At that 'interview', they will take your fingerprints. (Well, actually, "collect biometric information", which could mean a lot more.)

Of course, anyone who has ever "been convicted of any criminal offense or have pending criminal charges or outstanding warrants" or has "been found in violation of any customs, immigration or agriculture regulations or laws in any country" or is the "subject of an ongoing investigation by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency" won't qualify.

Many fine, upstanding people have criminal records. Lets look through History at some people who would be ineligible for Global Entry, and thus would still need to be Groped at the Gate:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (arrested upwards of twenty times)

Rosa Parks (arrested for not giving up her bus seat)

George Clooney (arrested in Washington protest)

John Lennon (pleaded guilty to possession of 1/2 ounce of cannabis resin)

Joan of Arc (tried, convicted and burned alive for heresy)

Nelson Mandela (arrested and charged with illegal exit from the country, and incitement to strike)

Socrates (found guilty and sentenced to death for refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state).

Johnny Carson (drunken driving...pleaded no contest and was placed on three years probation and fined $603)

Retired race-car champion Bobby Unser (misdemeanor conviction for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm. Though the judge gave him only a $75 fine, the 77-year-old racing legend got a criminal record.)

Mahatma Gandhi (arrested in 1922, tried for sedition, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment)

Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft) (arrested by the Albuquerque Police department. The charges were speeding and driving without a license)

...and I'm not even getting into the "violation of any customs, immigration or agriculture regulations or laws in any country", which means if a US Citizen violates ANY countries laws, they don't qualify. Guess what- there are countries where women are supposed to, by law, wear burkas. If an American woman doesn't wear a burka, she's in violation of that countries law, and can't get Global Entry. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=player_detailpage#t=316s - particularly the part about the Bony fish.

The point is, the Global pass system is meant for International Travelers, not domestic, and not only costs in terms of money and time spent traveling to one of their few 'centers' for an interview, but also in terms of privacy because of the need to hand over biometric info. Between all that and the requirement to never have violated any law on the planet, ever, It is not a practical way for many to get avoid being groped.

As a traveler you are subjecting yourself to a closed vessel which will soon be 5 miles above the earth, amongst 100, 200, maybe even 300 people you nor the TSA employees know. And as that traveler you don't know the TSA person, their skill set or intentions. I advise you to accept the occasional pat down and higher security check we receive in the US and suspect those in favor of the global standard would be the first to complain if they were killed or injured by an on board terrorist. And, if you have been patted down more than twice in the last three months, buy some new clothes - you look like trouble.

Anonymous said..."As a traveler you are subjecting yourself to a closed vessel which will soon be 5 miles above the earth, amongst 100, 200, maybe even 300 people you nor the TSA employees know. And as that traveler you don't know the TSA person, their skill set or intentions. I advise you to accept the occasional pat down and higher security check we receive in the US ..."

So, you're saying I should accept that I'm being sexually assaulted... err... patted down... by someone not qualified to do a proper patdown, and is going to miss that stick of dynamite shoved where the sun don't shine, anyhow?

"...and suspect those in favor of the global standard would be the first to complain if they were killed..."

Aside from the grammatical issues, first, either obey of be suspect? 1984, much? second, can't complain if I'm dead ;)

" or injured by an on board terrorist."

If a terrorist makes it on board and I am injured, I won't complain. First, the likelihood of this happening is nearly non-existent. Second, even if it does, that is the risk. TSA does nothing to change the fact that maybe, just maybe, you may die or be injured by a terrorist. It's a risk you live with every single time you fly. You're more likely to be struck my lightning while lying unconscious awaiting rescue from an automotive accident. Well, I have no numbers to back that statement up. But the two events happening by themselves are each much greater than another 9/11, so it's not a stretch to assume that them happening together is also more likely.

" And, if you have been patted down more than twice in the last three months, buy some new clothes - you look like trouble."

Or you're an attractive female. Or you have a medical condition which doesn't qualify for a medical opt-out but causes false alarms every time. Or any other number of reasons. Besides, how I look is of no concern to the TSA. The next terrorist could be a nicely dressed middle-aged while man. The person you criticize for needing new clothes just might be the person who takes him out and saved the flight. "Do not judge a book by its cover." Words to live by.